If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Whoever put these together needs to make up their minds about whether going to Congress was good or bad.

Why can't it be both? If it was done in order to secure congressional consent for an action that will put Americans in harm's way and build a bipartisan consensus which will strengthen the president's hand in dealing with an enemy, then it was a good thing. If it was done in order to punt the issue and avoid making a decision, or avoid the repercussions if that decision turns out to have been wrong, then it wasn't. BTW, there are long-established precedents that say that a president does not have to beg for congressional authority to engage in military action. The Barbary Pirate War, the various Indian Wars, the US punitive raids against Pancho Villa and the Somalia campaigns were all taken without congressional approval. Whether this is as it ought to be is subject to debate, but the precedent is clear. Even the War Powers Act permitted presidents to invade Grenada, bomb Libya (Reagan did it before Obama did), invade Panama and overthrow its government and bomb the Serbs. Going to congress is therefore not necessary for limited engagements, but it does demonstrate that the president who does so is concerned with building consensus and winning over the support of the American people.

Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble

As far as the neo-hippie sudden affection for war, that simply doesn't make sense:

Sure it does. You just have to disabuse yourself of the notion that the left cares about issues. Once you realize that it's all about power, and that nothing else matters to them, it all makes perfect sense.

My elected officials (in the Legislative Branch) are Joe Barton, John Cornyn, and Ted Cruz. One apologized to BP after they shit on the Gulf, one thinks gay marriage means people will start tying the knot with box turtles, and the last one is a fucking nut.

one thinks gay marriage means people will start tying the knot with box turtles, and the last one is a fucking nut.

I see you have an underlying sexual attraction to turtles, this explains you support for president post turtle.

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness;Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyesAnd clever in their own sight! Isaiah 5:20-21 NASB

My elected officials (in the Legislative Branch) are Joe Barton, John Cornyn, and Ted Cruz. One apologized to BP after they shit on the Gulf, one thinks gay marriage means people will start tying the knot with box turtles, and the last one is a fucking nut.

Between this and your post in the recall thread, it sounds like somebody's Utne Reader came late.

BP didn't $#|+ on the Gulf, they had an accidental spill, which was exacerbated by incompetent government (Obama's refusal of help from non-union foreign spill teams, for example). Cornyn has not, to my recollection, said anything about box turtles, but gay marriage has already led to calls for legalization of polygamy, while DADT repeal has led to demands to allow transsexuals to serve. Once these barriers are gone (and all that takes is a Democratic president and a few SCOTUS picks), I imagine that we can expect bestiality and inanimate marriage to follow. Cruz's "nut" factor appears to be that you disagree with him on some issue or another, which actually makes him less of a nut to the rest of the country. However, perhaps you can explain exactly what it is about Cruz that sets you off?